Potus ???

[GarethM]

31 minutes ago, sime42 said:

 

As the most prolific poster in this thread, do you Davey, think this episode is to be applauded: Trump's attempted takeover of Greenland? If not, then how should Europe counter it, is Mr Starmer on the right track, or should he display more balls? Fair point about Maggie, but she had a far easier job with Reagan. She wasn't dealing with a narcissistic tangerine toddler.

 

If indeed he is playing 6D chess against a grand master, then maybe Starmer should deploy the King again. I.e. threaten to cancel his USA visit. In seriousness, the promise of, or threat to withhold special treats seems to be the only way to deal with Trump. Much like any other toddler. Alternatively, Norway could just give him another big gold medal for not invading Greenland. What a ridiculous situation we find ourselves in.

Regardless of the democratic process of the USA being followed, it's naive to think that the damage that the current Potus is inflicting left, right and centre is confined only to the USA. 

 

And you think Starmer and his useless clan of European despot's are doing any better than virtue signalling and doing diddly squat?.

 

If Donald is playing chess, Starmer and the EU are barely able to play tag in the playground.

[Mark J]

29 minutes ago, GarethM said:

And you think Starmer and his useless clan of European despot's are doing any better than virtue signalling and doing diddly squat?.

 

If Donald is playing chess, Starmer and the EU are barely able to play tag in the playground.

Donald and Nigel are off to the WEF soon..how does that sit with you, Gareth?

[GarethM]

12 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Donald and Nigel are off to the WEF soon..how does that sit with you, Gareth?

I'm sure those friendly tit whisperer greens and half the labour party will be paying Donald and Nigel's cigar and bar tab.

[Johnsond]

1 hour ago, sime42 said:

As the most prolific poster in this thread, do you Davey, think this episode is to be applauded: Trump's attempted takeover of Greenland? If not, then how should Europe counter it, is Mr Starmer on the right track, or should he display more balls? Fair point about Maggie, but she had a far easier job with Reagan. She wasn't dealing with a narcissistic tangerine toddler.

Well someone has to feed the TDS sufferers 42. 
Question Question Question Question 🤔🤔no thanks lad, been there done that too many times, I might try SP/TA’s tactics and just act as though you never asked any, you seem ok with that. 
 

[Squaredy]

11 hours ago, openspaceman said:

It wasn't by the Marshall plan. Germany and Japan were rebuilt under it wheras UK was excluded from any of the resulting trade. Worse was the exclusion of british scientists from knowledge they had supplied  in the Manhattan project. The UK government realised the new threat was Russia and embarked on our own nuclear weapons project but without some core knowledge which resulted in a fire at Windscale.

As I said the war in wouldn't have been won without US industrial might ( which was able to develop hugely in the absence of bombing) and the many more of their servicemen that were killed than brits ( in fact US commanders have always been a bit gung ho with their use of troops from 1917-18 through 1942 to 45 then Korea and Vietnam).

 

Yes during the war we received massive amounts of material and food but the american economy grew  well from the war, we emerged destitute and the cost was the loss of the colonies as a result of the Atlantic treaty.

 

I grew up in the early post war years and saw the way the american standard of living was outstripping ours ( my father's younger sister was a GI bride and the family visited several times in the 60s, twice on Cunard queens before air travel took over). Then half a crown was referred to as half a dollar, a dollar was 10 shillings and 4$ to the £, That's how far we slipped in economic terms.

 

I did not know about the WW1 debt but oddly we committed troops in the russian civil war after 1918 but don't think  the US did . I suppose their irrational fear of communism had not yet developed.

 

Thank you very interesting.  I am aware of the difference in living standards post war in the USA and the UK and much of Europe.  But I wasn't aware about the trade so I will be reading about this.  I often say to people I know that WW2 was in effect won by the USA and lost by Europe.  Which is not to deny the incredible efforts of the UK, France, and a host of other nations - it is just that even the so-called winners in Europe were losers in reality.

[daveindales]

A topic I find interesting.  By  the way, with regard to helping other nations, the British gave a lot of aid to russia. Some of which came from Britain via America. 5000 tanks and 7000 aircraft including nearly 3000 Hurricanes and 1300 spitfires, together with radar sets, depth charges, bren gun carriers and millions of rounds of ammunition etc. Some British hurricane squadrons were even based in Murmansk, Russia for a while.

Those on Artic convoys must have gone through hell, what with the extreme weather and not knowing if you will get torpedoed at any moment 

 

Obviously America had a huge impact on winning WW2. However, without The British Isles, they would have had nowhere in Europe in which to establish a foothold in Europe. Nowhere to station their troops, aircraft, ships etc. How could the allies have undertaken the invasion of Normandy or anywhere else in Europe?

 

[Squaredy]

43 minutes ago, daveindales said:

A topic I find interesting.  By  the way, with regard to helping other nations, the British gave a lot of aid to russia. Some of which came from Britain via America. 5000 tanks and 7000 aircraft including nearly 3000 Hurricanes and 1300 spitfires, together with radar sets, depth charges, bren gun carriers and millions of rounds of ammunition etc. Some British hurricane squadrons were even based in Murmansk, Russia for a while.

Those on Artic convoys must have gone through hell, what with the extreme weather and not knowing if you will get torpedoed at any moment 

 

Obviously America had a huge impact on winning WW2. However, without The British Isles, they would have had nowhere in Europe in which to establish a foothold in Europe. Nowhere to station their troops, aircraft, ships etc. How could the allies have undertaken the invasion of Normandy or anywhere else in Europe?

 

We should start a History thread maybe...

[Steven P]

On 19/01/2026 at 13:20, sime42 said:

What a guy. He displays all the gravitas and diplomacy of a tangerine.

 

 

Trump links Greenland dispute to not getting Nobel Peace Prize, in letter to Norway's PM

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

The US president says he no longer feels obliged to think only of peace, after not being awarded the annual prize.

 

I'm curious; do either of this threads most prolific posters think this episode is to be applauded? If not, then how should Europe counter it, is Mr Starmer on the right track, or should he display more balls? 

 

Been busy last couple of days (probably spreadsheets and stuff like that). His Greenland thing is another - and getting more frequent "WTF" moment. He cannot invade because he would be kicked out of NATO, a good chance that would mean the US would also struggle to maintain bases in NATO countries... which threatens US security world wide. Which is why he is going for $700 billion estimation to buy it.

 

The cynic might think that a Venezuelan won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Peace prize people are Norwegians and these are the 2 countries he is thinking of attacking...

 

However it is nothing at all to do with security - as far as I can tell there is no escalating threat from Russia to the US, a long way for China to sail, and any missiles from either over Greenland would currently be intercepted. All to do with the climate change he doesn't believe in, melting the ice so Greenlands minerals can be exploited. The riches are worth far more than the 700 billion he wants to buy it with. And the Peace Prize.

[openspaceman]

3 hours ago, daveindales said:

A topic I find interesting.  By  the way, with regard to helping other nations, the British gave a lot of aid to russia. Some of which came from Britain via America. 5000 tanks and 7000 aircraft including nearly 3000 Hurricanes and 1300 spitfires, together with radar sets, depth charges, bren gun carriers and millions of rounds of ammunition etc. Some British hurricane squadrons were even based in Murmansk, Russia for a while.

Those on Artic convoys must have gone through hell, what with the extreme weather and not knowing if you will get torpedoed at any moment 

Yes  Russian economy had already fallen way behind since it became a centralised economy in 1917, who knows how they might have been with better rulers given all the resources available to them.

 

The british economy largely depended on imports from the empire and its manufacturing was in the hands of a wealthy minority. Once it had to pay world prices for materials the wealthy largely bailed out.

 

What it did have was a well educated middle class and technocrats which not only provided the science that developed innovative solutions Chain Home, cavity magnetron, Colossus amongst many others, details of which were freely given to US who benefited very well from the gift.

 

Despite the set back to the economy it remains a good place to live and work although Canada and Australia were tempting. The national insurance scheme actually means I would only spend 60% of my life earning 🙂 but that probably won't last for the next generation as the Gini ratio moves to the american way.

3 hours ago, daveindales said:

 

Obviously America had a huge impact on winning WW2. However, without The British Isles, they would have had nowhere in Europe in which to establish a foothold in Europe. Nowhere to station their troops, aircraft, ships etc. How could the allies have undertaken the invasion of Normandy or anywhere else in Europe?

 

The answer is probably that there never would have been an invasion of europe; that depended on our half american prime minister persuading Roosevelt, to deal with Europe first while the bulk of the German army were engaged in Russia.

 

Japan made a fundemental mistake in attacking America when they did, this doomed Hitler.

Japan was in an onerous position, already embargoed by US and, like Britain dependent on imports. Their miscalculation was in thinking if they swept up all the colonial assets of the French, Dutch and British once Germany occupied mainland Europe , their main enemy now now occupied fighting germany for the las six months and with the incursion into China stalled, America would intervene. It would not have.

 

Eventually there would have been a war between Japan and US  but too late to save Europe.

 

The axis were a dysfunctional alliance whereas America, Britain (which headed the commonwealth of nations, many still colonies) and Russia (less so) were coordinated.

 

The fly in Hitler's plan to create a reich which could out compete the american economy depended on the securing of land and resources in eastern europe, he thought he had settled a deception on Chamberlain

but 31 March 1939 Chamberlain had signed an agreement with France and Poland  (which Russia was planning to invade) that they would come to their aid should Germany attack.  German plans depended on taking Poland in order to get to their goal of the agricultural lands of Ukraine and the oil fields to the south of USSR.

 

When Hitler invaded Poland  in September 1939 and Russia was given the east Poland two months later as a feint, Hitler did not expect Chamberlain to declare war. So he had to bring forward his contingency plan to attack France through the low countries.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by openspaceman
Correct president

[Josey Wales]

We should start a History thread maybe...

 

How about 'Making the news today in.....(choose your year) ' ?

e.g,  on this date, the 20th January in 1945 the fourth inauguration was held of President Roosevelt.

It'll either be the most learned and courteous thread on Arbtalk, or if someone picks a contentious subject more in keeping with 'Making the news today' and 'Potus'.